Thus M. Chautemps on the occasion of the fall of the one
hundred and third government France has had in the 67 years since
the Third Republic was established in1871--an average of a new
government every eight months.

Well, that was essentially what old Colbert was saying
anytime he was asked after 1675, with the ruinous wars of Louis
XIV hurrying the land into bankruptcy.That is what the Duc de
Noailles was saying in 1716, when the Scotch adventurer, John
Law, swept into Paris with the Mississippi Bubble. That was what
Turgot was saying in 1776, what Necker was saying in 1788. It was
what the Directory was saying in 1796 when Napoleon heaved over
the horizon, what Talleyrand was saying in 1814, what Guizot was
saying in 1848. It was what innumerable ministers were saying for
long in the years after the establishment of the Third Republic.
And it is what, save for a period of five years, every minister
of France has been saying since the end of the Great War.

For 250 years the franc, or what answered to the franc,
has, more often than not, been"only temporarily weak."
Sometimes,indeed, it has been stabilized at some level--usually
lower than the last--and has stayed so for a good many years. But
most often it has gone down still further until utter
bankruptcy---and with it revolution--was reached, and French
money started out all over again.

A Fast Play

Chancellor Schuschnigg may yet turn out to be the most
astute of the European dictators.

Hitler's scheme has been to penetrate Austria without
actual resort to arms, to make Anschloss a
reality, while retaining the pretense of Austrian independence
until some convenient opportunity to abolish it arose. The
immediate strategy called for an intensive Austrian Nazi
organization program in the next six months or so, then the
forcing of an election, the systematic intimidation of all voters
save Nazis, and the election of a Nazi government.

But Schuschnigg, by ordering an election for Sunday, has
upset that applecart. The Nazis stand to take such a beating at
the polls just now as to seriously impair their prestige in
Austria. And if they resort to armed force, the Chancellor
probably can quickly put them down--unless Hitler intervenes with
troops. But if Hitler invades Austria, it is an even bet that the
patience of the French may snap, that a French army will move
into the Rhineland the French navy into the North Sea to shut off
foodstuffs from an already hungry Germany. And what will Signor
Mussolini do? No one can say, of course. But there is a very good
chance that, disliking German occupation of Austria anyhow, and
fearing an open contest with Britain, he'll decide to sit tight
and hope to profit from the weakening of both sides. Nor are
Czechoslovakia and Poland likely to pass up a chance to have at
their ancient oppressor with the pack.

Hitler's fanaticism and belief in his destiny may lead him
to do it anyhow. Nevertheless, Schuschnigg does seem to have put
it up to him to back down or take a last desperate throw.

*Bauer's Swap

Southern farmers vote tomorrow on whether they want the
Federal Government to fix 1938 marketing quotas four cotton and
tobacco. And we climb out on a limb which is practically the size
of a redwood trunk and confidently announce our belief that
two-thirds of 'em will vote that they do want it, and that the
thing will go into effect.

But having said that, we hardly know what else to say to
make this look like an editorial. There's a great uproar going
around, we've noticed, to the effect that the farmers will be
signing away their liberty if they accept the scheme. The
individual farmer, it is said, will no longer be the master of
what shall be done with his private acres, but will have to
account for every inch of his holdings to the bureaucratic
colossus at Washington. And so far as that goes, it's all so, we
guess, and we don't like it.

Still, we can't work up much of a lather over it. After
all, it is the farmer's liberty, and if he
wants to swap off a hunk of it for hard cash, that seems mainly
his business. More than that, we observe that he only swaps it
for a year at a time, can quit the trade next year if he
likes--and that that doesn't seem to add up very far toward the
dictatorship we hear about. And more still, the liberty he is
swapping off appears to be mainly the liberty to grow too much,to
get himself ear-deep in grief, and sadly to upset the national
economy. It's a pretty stiff price to pay for individualism.

*Add--Their Manners

The dime taxis want a hearing before the City Council on
the charge that they aid and abet prostitution and bootlegging
before any action is taken looking to their elimination. And of
course they ought to have it. If it can be satisfactorily shown
that cabs can be operated for a dime without becoming mere
ambulant procurers, and that they are financially responsible for
any damage they may do to life and property; why,obviously, they
have the same right to ply the streets as any others. Provided,
one other thing--

Provided, we started to say but have changed our minds,
that they mended their driving manners. They are pretty bad, in
all conscience. They rush green lights at headlong speed and pass
on under the red. They dart recklessly in and out of traffic
lanes, and they pull up for a stop in the middle of the block
without the thought of a hand signal.

But, so b'George, does everybody else; and besides, you
can't run the dime taxis off on a blanket charge that they aren't
driven as they should be. There are laws against driving that way
and policemen to enforce the laws, against dime taxis and all
other motorists.

*J. P. Practices Exposed

Mr. Paul's workmanlike story in yesterday's paper, all
about justices of the peace and the disposition of criminal
actions coming before them, contained a number of quaint
disclosures. One was, that the total of fines imposed in 1937 by
ten jaypees in Charlotte township came to $69.15. Fines go to the
school fund. In contrast to this miserable sum, a total of
$2,996.05 costs were collected. Costs go to the jaypees and their
constables.

Another peculiar characteristic of the jaypees is the
infrequency with which they find the accused innocent. This may
be due to the fact that prosecuting witnesses, so to speak,
retain the jaypees, and if not given satisfaction will take their
business elsewhere. At any rate, out of 785 cases, not guilty
verdicts were returned in only 23.One magistrate with 178 cases
involving 151 persons found only one of them not guilty.

Something else to marvel at was the number of warrants
withdrawn. These are criminal actions, mind you, and not civil;
based on some violation, real or alleged, of State law.Yet 236 of
785 warrants served were withdrawn. Anybody who is familiar with
jaypee practice knows what this means. It means that, in many
instances, if not in most, criminal processes were being used to
do what couldn't be done in civil court. In fine, it means that
you persuade a debtor to give you a check, and that I you take
that check before a jaypee, who swears out a criminal warrant,
and that the poor devil who gave the check is threatened with
jail unless he settles. "Warrant withdrawn" is an
equivalent term to "check paid," plus the jaypee's
costs.